4 ms·

> And why do you think that is? Diagnosing the symptom is far easier than understanding the cause. You're doing the former. When you're talking about emergent

• Chris2048 10y ago
  > I'm aware that there are many groups who claim to know why (god) This is a complicated example. The fact that people make these claims is itself a phenomenon with complicated, physiological explanations. Hence the process of investigation interferes such as to confound the investigation.
  • dlss 10y ago
    While I do agree it's a complicated example, I also feel like the phenomena of people claiming to understand why women in aggregate behave a certain way similarly confounds OP's investigation. So a complicated example for sure, but for fair reasons.
• brenschluss 10y ago
  > "why" is incredibly hard to answer accurately and incredibly easy to answer inaccurately. Of course. Yet we should try, shouldn't we? Your life, and mine, are made out of millions of choices that have been made by people before you. The shape of the building you're in right now, the size and proportion of your chair, the computer, the width of the roads you drove on, or the form of the subway you were on. The fact that you're typing these letters on a keyboard in a linear sequence, from left to right. There are countless historical reasons why you To say "I don't know why any of these happened; I'm just going to look at the present" is fine. But it makes it impossible to evaluate any action in context. Your profile says you're a statistician - surely you understand the value of understanding things in context? So, here's another example: Bob says: "I honestly have no clue why black males en mass (apparently) commit the most crimes. All I can say is that would seem to be their aggregate behavior. We should stop and frisk and detain black males based on these statistics. Can you honestly tell me that this is wrong?" Would you agree? Why examine pesky historical trends, and the history of slavery, the civil war, structural racism? After all, 'why' is incredibly hard to answer accurately. The facts are clear, after all. Isn't it okay to enact policies based on the present that don't care at all about the past? /devilsadvocate
  • dlss 10y ago
    >> "why" is incredibly hard to answer accurately and incredibly easy to answer inaccurately. > Of course. Yet we should try, shouldn't we? I mean, maybe? If you see a way to do it that you think would actually work? What I was saying above is that I'm not aware of any methods that would work, and that I've spent quite a while looking for one. At best it's a pure waste of time, at worst you accidentally trick yourself into believing you've found something. Same example: It's very unlikely that even if there is a reason "why" you and I exist, that we will ever learn the answer. To spend time on this problem looks like it's at best wasteful, and at worst results in insanity or cult formation. > Bob says: "I honestly have no clue why black males en mass (apparently) commit the most crimes. All I can say is that would seem to be their aggregate behavior. We should stop and frisk and detain black males based on these statistics. Can you honestly tell me that this is wrong?" This is a very very different statement than the one above. Although the sentences have similar structure, mine is about the limits of knowledge, and yours is someone being overconfident about a policy recommendation (since there are presumably many other possible approaches to policing that would need to be considered before a policy could be deemed best). If you're asking how I'd respond to someone saying that today? I dunno, the hypothetical speaker sounds dumb. I guess I'd ask for references and do some reading before coming to a conclusion. That's what I did for the pockets argument, and how I came upon the above economic rebuttal. I also really don't see what stop and frisk has to do with black crime statistics mentioned above... are you saying the statute literally mentioned race? If so that seems dumb / unjustifiably specific. If not, well, you just failed an ideological turning test[1]. My understanding as someone who doesn't follow politics is that some parts of the country are sufficiently high crime that people want to designate those places as essentially airports (so you'll need to be screened if you'd like to enter). That doesn't sound insane to me, but then again I haven't really read anything on the subject. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test